Workflow template for legal and contracts
Consultation fact record
After a first consultation, the intake attorney gets a draft fact record: each statement marked by how the client knows it, each date by how exactly it was given, the outcome the client wants set apart, every document mentioned but not supplied, and questions to choose from. It names no legal issue.
This workflow template prepares legal work for a lawyer to review. It gives no legal advice and has not been reviewed by a lawyer. A lawyer decides and signs.
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
The intake attorney opens one page after the consultation and sees the account sorted: what the client did or saw, what someone else told the client, what the client is assuming, and what the notes do not show either way. Every line points back to its paragraph or timestamp in the notes. Dates stay exactly as precise as the client made them. Where the account disagrees with itself, both versions sit side by side. The outcome the client wants has its own place, and so does every letter, message or photograph the client mentioned and has not yet sent. The attorney's next conversation starts from a ready list of factual questions, and the paralegal's write-up reads the same way after every consultation.
This is preparation, and it stays preparation. It gives no legal advice. It names no legal issue, reads no legal relationship into what the client said, and gives no view on the matter. It decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines: a time limit the client mentions is quoted and left uncounted, and a name that was not on the inquiry's party list is flagged, never cleared. It sends, files, signs and calendars nothing. The record is a draft for the intake attorney, headed as one, with a line for each point the attorney must confirm. It never goes to the client.
Who starts the work, and when
The paralegal who sat in on the consultation, or who received the transcript, starts it once the notes are saved in the firm's intake location, usually the same day. The intake attorney who held the consultation verifies the record, decides what to ask next and decides whether any new name goes to the firm's conflict review.
It is not for the first inquiry, before anyone has spoken with the client: inquiry handoff does that. It is not for building a timeline from a set of documents, for reading the documents the client supplied, or for anything written to the client.
What they supply
- The consultation notes or transcript, every page, as typed notes or a transcript with each speaker named.
- The consultation details: the prospective client, the matter label, the date, how it was held, who was present, and the intake attorney who verifies.
- The party list from the inquiry, so new names can be flagged.
- The list of documents the client has supplied, by file name. The record lists them; it does not read them.
- The firm's own format for the record, if it has one. Otherwise the default order below is used.
The workflow template works only from these. It brings in no law, no outside facts and nothing remembered from another matter.
What comes out
One draft record, marked as a draft for the intake attorney:
- People and organisations named, each only in the client's own description, with any name not on the inquiry's party list marked as new.
- What the client said, one statement per line, each marked first-hand, secondhand (and from whom), the client's assumption, or basis not stated, and each date marked confirmed, approximate or unknown, with approximate words copied as said.
- Time limits the client mentioned, quoted and not counted.
- What the client wants, in the client's words, apart from the facts, with any question the client asked kept for the attorney to answer.
- Documents: mentioned but not supplied, mentioned and supplied, and supplied but never mentioned.
- Contradictions, both versions, neither chosen.
- Gaps in the notes, and where the note-taker's own comments were left out.
- Follow-up questions for the attorney to choose from, each pointing to the lines it comes from.
- Attorney to confirm, and a check block with the counts.
The paralegal reads the draft against the notes and gives it to the intake attorney. The attorney checks it, signs the verification line and decides what happens next. Nothing goes to the client or into the matter file before that.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The firm, its people, the prospective client, Shop A, Contractor B, Supplier C, Company D, every other person named and every figure below are invented. Nothing here describes a real consultation, a real business or a real dispute.
The paralegal's three inputs come first, in full, then what the workflow template prepares. The request carries the consultation details and says there is no firm format, and the second input holds both the party list and the list of supplied documents, so the five inputs the workflow template asks for arrive as three.
Input 1: the request
Sent by Priya Lund, paralegal, on Wednesday 4 November 2026.
Please prepare the consultation fact record for Tomas Reyhill.
Prospective client: Ines Varga
Matter label: Varga / Contractor B, ventilation works
Consultation: video call, 4 November 2026, 10:00 to 10:50
Present: Ines Varga, prospective client; Tomas Reyhill, intake attorney;
Priya Lund, paralegal (notes)
Notes: attached, saved to the intake folder. TR's own comments are in
square brackets.
No firm format: use the default.
Input 2: the party list from the inquiry, and the documents supplied
Party list from the inquiry packet:
Ines Varga
Shop A
Contractor B
Documents supplied by the client (emailed 3 November 2026):
1. Contractor B quote signed 12-Aug-2026.pdf
2. Bank statement Aug 2026.pdf
Input 3: the consultation notes
Consultation notes · Ines Varga (IV) · video call · 4 November 2026
Taken by Priya Lund. TR = Tomas Reyhill.
¶1 IV owns Shop A, a print shop. Sole owner since 2019. She hired
Contractor B to replace the ventilation and extraction in the print
room.
¶2 She signed Contractor B's quote on 12 August 2026. Quote total
$18,400. She paid a deposit of $6,000 by bank transfer, also on
12 August 2026.
¶3 IV was at the shop when work started, "early September", and saw two
of Contractor B's workers on site most days for about two weeks. The
site lead was Owen; IV does not know his surname.
¶4 Work stopped "around the 25th of September". IV is at the shop every
working day and no one from Contractor B has come since. The old
extraction unit was taken out and the new one is not connected, so
the print room cannot be used for solvent printing.
¶5 IV texted Owen several times. He replied once, "sometime in early
October", saying the parts were "held up at the supplier". IV thinks
the supplier is Supplier C, because she saw Supplier C's name on
boxes delivered to the shop.
¶6 IV's neighbour Rafe Doyle, who runs the café next door, told her
Contractor B "is shutting down". He heard it from someone at a trade
event. IV: "I think they took my deposit knowing they couldn't
finish."
¶7 On 30 October 2026 IV received a letter from Contractor B's office
asking for a second payment of $5,200 for materials. She read us a
line from a photo of it on her phone: "within 14 days of the date of
this letter". She did not have the letter with her.
¶8 IV reread the quote "last week": payment in two stages, the deposit
and the balance on completion. "Nothing about a payment for
materials."
¶9 (Video dropped for about a minute.) Back on: IV said the deposit was
"$6,500, I think, with the card fee".
¶10 Since late September IV has turned away two solvent print orders.
One customer, Company D, took its order elsewhere. IV says she lost
"about $3,000" on that order.
¶11 IV has photographs of the print room as it was left. Not sent yet.
¶12 What she wants: "I want the work finished or my money back so I can
get someone else in. And I don't want to pay that letter."
¶13 IV asked whether she has to pay the $5,200 by the date in the
letter. TR said the firm would read the documents first and come
back to her.
¶14 [TR: client credible; quote terms look strong for us.]
¶15 IV will email the letter, the texts and the photos today.
What the workflow template prepares
To Priya Lund: No stop applied. One contradiction (the deposit), one time
limit quoted and not counted, three documents mentioned and not supplied,
four new names and one gap where the video dropped. One paragraph of
note-taker's comments was left out. Still to do, by people: read the
draft against the notes and give it to Tomas Reyhill to verify. I have
sent nothing, run no search and added nothing to the matter file.
DRAFT CONSULTATION FACT RECORD · FOR THE INTAKE ATTORNEY TO VERIFY
Not legal advice. Names no legal issue and gives no view on the matter.
Decides nothing about legal meaning, merit, validity, privilege,
conflicts or deadlines: no name is cleared and no time limit is counted.
Nothing has been sent, filed, signed, calendared or added to the matter
file.
Prospective client: Ines Varga
Matter label: Varga / Contractor B, ventilation works
Consultation: 4 November 2026, video, 10:00 to 10:50
Present: Ines Varga, prospective client; Tomas Reyhill, intake attorney;
Priya Lund, paralegal (notes)
Source: notes by Priya Lund, 15 paragraphs
Prepared for: Tomas Reyhill, to verify
Prepared by: Priya Lund, with an AI assistant
1. PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS NAMED
No name here has been searched or cleared. NEW NAME means only that the
name is not on the inquiry's party list.
- Ines Varga · "owns Shop A, a print shop. Sole owner since 2019" · (¶1)
- Shop A · "a print shop" · (¶1)
- Contractor B · hired "to replace the ventilation and extraction in the
print room" · (¶1)
- Two of Contractor B's workers · "two of Contractor B's workers" · (¶3)
· NOT NAMED
- Owen · "The site lead"; "IV does not know his surname" · (¶3)
· NEW NAME: not on the intake party list
- Supplier C · name seen on "boxes delivered to the shop" · (¶5)
· NEW NAME: not on the intake party list
- Rafe Doyle · "IV's neighbour", "who runs the café next door" · (¶6)
· NEW NAME: not on the intake party list
- Someone at a trade event · "someone at a trade event" · (¶6)
· NOT NAMED
- Company D · "One customer" · (¶10)
· NEW NAME: not on the intake party list
2. WHAT THE CLIENT SAID
CONFIRMED means the client gave day, month and year. Nobody has checked
any date here.
1. APPROXIMATE "since 2019" · The client has owned Shop A, a print shop,
as sole owner. · FIRST-HAND · (¶1)
2. CONFIRMED 12 August 2026 · The client signed Contractor B's quote.
Quote total $18,400. · FIRST-HAND · (¶2)
· Document: supplied as "Contractor B quote signed 12-Aug-2026.pdf"
3. CONFIRMED 12 August 2026 · The client paid a deposit. · FIRST-HAND ·
(¶2) · see C1
4. APPROXIMATE "early September" · Work started; the client was at the
shop. · FIRST-HAND · (¶3)
5. APPROXIMATE "most days for about two weeks" · Two of Contractor B's
workers were on site; the client saw them. · FIRST-HAND · (¶3)
6. APPROXIMATE "around the 25th of September" · Work stopped. No one
from Contractor B has come since; the client is at the shop every
working day. · FIRST-HAND · (¶4)
7. APPROXIMATE "sometime in early October" · Owen replied once to the
client's texts. · FIRST-HAND · (¶5)
8. APPROXIMATE "sometime in early October" · The parts were "held up at
the supplier". · SECONDHAND: from Owen, in his reply · (¶5)
9. CONFIRMED 30 October 2026 · The client received a letter from
Contractor B's office asking for a second payment of $5,200 for
materials. · FIRST-HAND · (¶7)
· Document: not supplied, D1
10. APPROXIMATE "last week" · The client reread the quote: "payment in
two stages, the deposit and the balance on completion"; "Nothing
about a payment for materials." · FIRST-HAND · (¶8)
· Document: supplied as "Contractor B quote signed 12-Aug-2026.pdf"
11. APPROXIMATE "Since late September" · The client has turned away two
solvent print orders. · FIRST-HAND · (¶10)
12. UNKNOWN · The client hired Contractor B to replace the ventilation
and extraction in the print room. · FIRST-HAND · (¶1)
13. UNKNOWN · The old extraction unit was taken out and the new one is
not connected, so the print room cannot be used for solvent
printing. · FIRST-HAND · (¶4)
14. UNKNOWN · The client texted Owen several times. · FIRST-HAND · (¶5)
· Document: not supplied, D2
15. UNKNOWN · The supplier Owen mentioned is Supplier C. · CLIENT'S
ASSUMPTION · (¶5)
16. UNKNOWN · The client saw Supplier C's name on boxes delivered to the
shop. · FIRST-HAND · (¶5)
17. UNKNOWN · Contractor B "is shutting down". · SECONDHAND: from Rafe
Doyle, who heard it from someone at a trade event · (¶6)
18. UNKNOWN · "I think they took my deposit knowing they couldn't
finish." · CLIENT'S ASSUMPTION · (¶6)
19. UNKNOWN · Company D took its order elsewhere. · BASIS NOT STATED ·
(¶10)
20. UNKNOWN · The client lost "about $3,000" on that order. · CLIENT'S
ASSUMPTION · (¶10)
21. UNKNOWN · The client has photographs of the print room as it was
left. · FIRST-HAND · (¶11)
· Document: not supplied, D3
3. TIME LIMITS THE CLIENT MENTIONED
T1. "within 14 days of the date of this letter" · FIRST-HAND, read by
the client from "a photo of it on her phone" · (¶7) · Not counted.
For the intake attorney.
4. WHAT THE CLIENT WANTS
Outcome, in the client's words: "I want the work finished or my money
back so I can get someone else in. And I don't want to pay that
letter." (¶12)
Questions the client asked: "IV asked whether she has to pay the
$5,200 by the date in the letter" (¶13). Not answered in this record.
5. DOCUMENTS
Mentioned, not supplied:
D1. Contractor B's letter asking for a second payment of $5,200, received
30 October 2026 · holder not stated; the client has "a photo of it
on her phone" · (¶7, ¶15) · Contents unknown to this record.
D2. Text messages between the client and Owen · holder not stated ·
(¶5, ¶15) · Contents unknown to this record.
D3. Photographs of the print room as it was left · held by the client ·
(¶11, ¶15) · Contents unknown to this record.
Mentioned and supplied:
- Contractor B's quote · "Contractor B quote signed 12-Aug-2026.pdf" ·
(¶2, ¶8) · Not read by this record.
Supplied, not mentioned:
- "Bank statement Aug 2026.pdf" · Not read by this record.
6. CONTRADICTIONS
C1. The deposit: "a deposit of $6,000 by bank transfer" (¶2) / "$6,500,
I think, with the card fee" (¶9). The amount and the way it was paid
differ. Neither version chosen.
Supplied file that may bear on it: "Bank statement Aug 2026.pdf",
not read by this record.
7. GAPS IN THE NOTES
G1. "Video dropped for about a minute." Anything said then is not in the
notes. (¶9)
Note-taker's comments left out: ¶14
8. FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, FOR THE ATTORNEY TO CHOOSE FROM
Q1. How much was the deposit, and how was it paid? (from 3, C1)
Q2. When did the client hire Contractor B, on what date did work start,
when was the old extraction unit taken out, and on what date was
anyone from Contractor B last at the shop? (from 4, 5, 6, 12, 13)
Q3. On what dates did the client text Owen, and on what date and by
what means did his reply arrive? (from 7, 8, 14)
Q4. What did the boxes show, when were they delivered, and does anything
else link the parts to Supplier C? (from 15, 16)
Q5. When did Rafe Doyle pass on what he heard, and apart from that, what
has the client seen or heard about Contractor B's plans or whether it
can finish the work? (from 17, 18)
Q6. How does the client know that Company D took its order elsewhere,
and when did it do so? (from 19)
Q7. What were the two orders turned away, when, and how was the figure
of about $3,000 worked out? (from 11, 20)
Q8. What date is printed on Contractor B's letter, and what does the
line about 14 days say in full? (from 9, T1)
Q9. Can the client send the letter, the text messages and the
photographs? (from D1, D2, D3)
ATTORNEY TO CONFIRM
[ ] Each statement's mark and date match the notes. Confirm: ____
[ ] C1. The deposit: which version, once checked. ____
[ ] T1. Time limit read by you. Not counted here. ____
[ ] The client's question at ¶13: answered by you. ____
[ ] New names Owen, Supplier C, Rafe Doyle, Company D: to the conflict
review? ____
[ ] G1. Video dropped (¶9): anything said there that is not noted. ____
[ ] Which follow-up questions are asked, and by whom. ____
[ ] The record is complete against the notes. Confirm: ____
CHECK
- Notes read: 15 of 15 paragraphs, numbered in the notes.
- Statements: 21. First-hand 15, secondhand 2, client's assumption 3,
basis not stated 1.
- Dates: 3 confirmed, 8 approximate, 10 unknown.
- People and organisations: 9, of which 4 new names and 2 not named.
- Documents: 3 mentioned, not supplied; 1 mentioned and supplied; 1
supplied, not mentioned.
- Time limits mentioned: 1, none counted. Contradictions: 1. Gaps: 1.
Note-taker's comments left out: 1. Follow-up questions: 9.
- No date was worked out from a relative reference. Supplied documents
were listed, not read.
- No legal issue, legal relationship or view on the matter appears in
this record, and no authority except as quoted and marked "to be
verified by the lawyer".
Verified by: ____________ Date: ________
Until this line is signed, this is a draft, and nothing in it has been
checked against the client or any document.
Statement 3 gives no amount and no way of paying, because the notes give two of each and the record does not choose. Statement 11 sits after the letter of 30 October although "late September" comes earlier in the year. The client told it last of the dated statements, and it does not move ahead: "last week" before it could only be compared by working out a date, and "since late September" runs up to the consultation, so it overlaps every later date. D1 and D2 say "holder not stated" because the notes say only that the client will email them; the photo of the letter that she read from is noted on D1, not listed as a document of its own. D3 is held by the client because the notes say she has the photographs. Her plan to email the documents, her reading from the photo during the call and Tomas Reyhill's reply at ¶13 are not statements: the documents are in section 5, the words she read are T1, and her question is in section 4. The note-taker's comment at ¶14 is a view on the matter, so the record lists where it is and repeats none of it.
Tomas Reyhill checks each line against the notes, chooses the questions, answers the client's question himself, and decides whether the four new names go to the conflict review. Only after he signs does the record go into the intake file.
Where it fits
- Legal and contracts: the record is the step between hearing a client's account and the attorney's own analysis of it, kept free of that analysis.
- Law firms, where the intake attorney sees several prospective clients a week and each account arrives as a page of rushed notes.
- Growth & scaling, when consultations outgrow the time the intake attorney has to write them up by hand.
- Established businesses, where one experienced paralegal writes up consultations well and nobody else knows how.
It follows inquiry handoff, which brings the inquiry to the firm's conflict review before any consultation. When the firm takes the matter on, matter-opening checklist preparation uses the verified record.
What has to change for your company
The intake attorney decides the shape. Set the order and headings of the record to match the firm's existing intake note, keeping the draft heading, the marks, the attorney-to-confirm lines and the check block. Decide where notes and transcripts are saved, whether consultations are recorded or typed up, and who sends new names to the conflict review once the attorney says so. Name who verifies when the intake attorney is away. Agree how the note-taker marks their own comments, so the record can leave them out.
We sit with the paralegal and the intake attorney, look at how consultations are written up today, and set this up in the AI product the firm has approved: ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini. Confirm with your firm's own policy that client information may be used in it. Your firm keeps control of how the work gets done.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template, drawing on a published intake method credited with it. It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 11 November 2026, and the record of that run, which replaced earlier ones from the same day after an independent review, is published with the template. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your firm means running it on past consultations whose write-ups an attorney already checked, and comparing: every statement present, every mark the same as the attorney's, every approximate date left as said, every mentioned document listed, and no legal issue named. Include notes where the client changes a figure halfway through, a transcript where someone else in the room speaks, a time limit read out from a letter, and a request to say whether the client has a case. Pilot acceptance-test preparation builds that set, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
Who decides
Your people keep
- Whether the record is complete against the notes
- What to ask next
- Whether any new name goes to the firm's conflict review
- Which version to rely on where the account disagrees with itself
It does not
- Gives no legal advice
- Decides nothing about meaning, merit, validity, privilege, conflicts or deadlines
- Sends, files, signs and calendars nothing
- Names no legal issue
- Counts no time limit the client mentions
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
The paralegal starts the work and the intake attorney verifies the record.
What do I need to supply?
The consultation notes or transcript, the consultation details, the party list from the inquiry, the list of documents the client has supplied and, if the firm has one, its own format for the record.
What does it not do?
It gives no legal advice and names no legal issue. The intake attorney decides and signs, and nothing is sent, filed, signed or calendared by it.
What do I get?
One draft record headed as a draft for the intake attorney: each statement marked by how the client knows it, each date by how exactly it was given, the outcome the client wants set apart, the documents mentioned but not supplied, and follow-up questions.
What has been checked?
It was editorially reviewed on 11 November 2026 and tried on its invented example in Claude. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and has not yet been tested in a client environment.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: